It is illegal in Australia to drive a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.
So why is it legal to ride a motor cycle?
How long will it before legislation is introduced concerning either the mandatory wearing of some kind of motor cycle harness, or the complete banning of of motor cycle riding?
The_observer said:
It is illegal in Australia to drive a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.So why is it legal to ride a motor cycle?
How long will it before legislation is introduced concerning either the mandatory wearing of some kind of motor cycle harness, or the complete banning of of motor cycle riding?
A fair and reasonable point.
The_observer said:
It is illegal in Australia to drive a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.So why is it legal to ride a motor cycle?
How long will it before legislation is introduced concerning either the mandatory wearing of some kind of motor cycle harness, or the complete banning of of motor cycle riding?
What happen in in accident if your wearing a seat belt and the bike starts sliding along the road?
You would be constrained by a seat belt holding you in place between the road and a heavy bike that’s on top of you sliding along the road and adding to your injuries.
Seatbelts are designed to stop people flying about inside the cabin of the car and hitting themselves on some solid object like the steering wheel, or to restrain them inside the cabin rather than flying out through the windscreen and hitting some solid object outside. Since there is no cabin on a motorbike to be restrained inside of there is no need for a seatbelt for either purpose. There is no value I can see in being tethered to a motorbike in the event of a collision, if you happen to hit some solid object with your body you are probably fucked either way.
party_pants said:
Seatbelts are designed to stop people flying about inside the cabin of the car and hitting themselves on some solid object like the steering wheel, or to restrain them inside the cabin rather than flying out through the windscreen and hitting some solid object outside. Since there is no cabin on a motorbike to be restrained inside of there is no need for a seatbelt for either purpose. There is no value I can see in being tethered to a motorbike in the event of a collision, if you happen to hit some solid object with your body you are probably fucked either way.
Yes, exactly. So option # 2
Consider also; you have a minor accident with another vehicle. No one hurt.
But if the other vehicle is a motor cycle, well the consequences can be far more tragic, for the car driver as well.
I guess you could argue that a car full of people without seatbelts could do more damage than one person on a motorbike, in that all of the passengers (quite apart from being victims) could be projectiles. Playing devil’s advocate here.
That’s why quad bikes are so dangerous.
Motorbikes become more dangerous if you add a seat belt. Because then you would get crushed by the bike.
Cars become less dangerous if you add a seat belt.
Quad bikes without proper roll cages are dangerous both ways. Quad bikes with proper roll cages need seat belts.
Perhaps if the seat of a motorbike was fitted with an airbag to eject the rider in the case of an accident?
More to the point perhaps is why car racing requires a helmet.
mollwollfumble said:
That’s why quad bikes are so dangerous.Motorbikes become more dangerous if you add a seat belt. Because then you would get crushed by the bike.
Cars become less dangerous if you add a seat belt.
Quad bikes without proper roll cages are dangerous both ways. Quad bikes with proper roll cages need seat belts.
Perhaps if the seat of a motorbike was fitted with an airbag to eject the rider in the case of an accident?
More to the point perhaps is why car racing requires a helmet.
Exactly. A seatbelt is not suitable for a motorcycle. So logically motor cycles should be banned on roads.
Another aspect is that there are advantages to people using motorcycles that might be weighed against the safety aspect. e.g. motorcycles cause less pollution or congestion per person.
Another aspect is that there are advantages to people using motorcycles that might be weighed against the safety aspect. e.g. motorcycles cause less pollution or congestion per person.
Does anyone keep statistics on whether car racing is deadlier than motorbike racing or vice versa?
mollwollfumble said:
Does anyone keep statistics on whether car racing is deadlier than motorbike racing or vice versa?
Bike racing tracks are designed so if a rider comes off they won’t get wrapped around a tree, telegrapg pole park benck etc, or go under a moving car or truck. Racing tracks & roads have no v omparison really.
According to this, motorcycle racing is ten times as safe as grand prix car racing.
For general road use, there’s one death per 5 million road miles for motorcycling. Compare with one death per 6,700 cars for general road use.
am I suppose to detect some logical inconsistency in the proposition, then think about it, then write something in response.
much as i’m inclined to think about it, then when I did I saw there wasn’t much to think about, but went on to resolve, with a little humour, that you may be just the person to start a campaign to make kinetic energy illegal.
it’s dangerous. And while i’m about it, of M(V^2), contrasted with wandering intrigues in the moral field, how does that exponentiated bit work.
the math works, but in the real world of things, the physics.
dv said:
I guess you could argue that a car full of people without seatbelts could do more damage than one person on a motorbike, in that all of the passengers (quite apart from being victims) could be projectiles. Playing devil’s advocate here.
If motorcycles were banned I don’t think there is any doubt that overall harm from road accidents would reduce, so I don’t think that’s a valid argument.
On the other hand, overall harm would be reduced even more if all car journeys were replaced with train journeys where possible, or some other form of public transport or walking where not.
So the inescapable conclusion seems to be that both motorcycles and cars should be banned.
mollwollfumble said:
According to this, motorcycle racing is ten times as safe as grand prix car racing.For general road use, there’s one death per 5 million road miles for motorcycling. Compare with one death per 6,700 cars for general road use.
Do you have a unit conversion for road miles to cars?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:I guess you could argue that a car full of people without seatbelts could do more damage than one person on a motorbike, in that all of the passengers (quite apart from being victims) could be projectiles. Playing devil’s advocate here.
If motorcycles were banned I don’t think there is any doubt that overall harm from road accidents would reduce, so I don’t think that’s a valid argument.
On the other hand, overall harm would be reduced even more if all car journeys were replaced with train journeys where possible, or some other form of public transport or walking where not.
So the inescapable conclusion seems to be that both motorcycles and cars should be banned.
So changing the law for one could lead to a slippery slope?
Say, trains could he banned after an accident leaving horse n cart.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
According to this, motorcycle racing is ten times as safe as grand prix car racing.For general road use, there’s one death per 5 million road miles for motorcycling. Compare with one death per 6,700 cars for general road use.
Do you have a unit conversion for road miles to cars?
The Internet says about 1 death per 200 million road miles overall.
The Rev Dodgson said:
So the inescapable conclusion seems to be that both motorcycles and cars should be banned.
Cars were probably a safety improvement over horse and buggy days. The advent of driverless cars more so.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:So the inescapable conclusion seems to be that both motorcycles and cars should be banned.
Cars were probably a safety improvement over horse and buggy days. The advent of driverless cars more so.
Yes, I think you could make a good argument for allowing human driven car use until computer drivers are available and reliable.
Motorbikes should probably be treated like cigarettes, rather than banned outright straight away.
If cigarettes, motorbikes and alcohol were invented today they would probably be banned.
mollwollfumble said:
That’s why quad bikes are so dangerous.Motorbikes become more dangerous if you add a seat belt. Because then you would get crushed by the bike.
Cars become less dangerous if you add a seat belt.
Quad bikes without proper roll cages are dangerous both ways. Quad bikes with proper roll cages need seat belts.
Perhaps if the seat of a motorbike was fitted with an airbag to eject the rider in the case of an accident?
More to the point perhaps is why car racing requires a helmet.
Quad bikes are dangerous and unstable mostly because they have tyres with large sidewalls. The tyres act like suspension springs without rebound damping which effectively makes the quad supported on dynamic pogo sticks. Most off the shelf quad bikes do not have the advanced suspension to overcome the spring action of the tyres.
Motorcycles are inherently stable when well maintained and will continue on their same trajectory. But when things get messy and something other than the footpegs or tyres want to touch the ground, a rider should push the bike away from them if they have the presence of mind. Being attached to the bike when sliding is not an enjoyable experience, generally speaking.
AwesomeO said:
If cigarettes, motorbikes and alcohol were invented today they would probably be banned.
Horse riding should be added to that list.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/23/riding.shtml
“While you can expect to have a serious motorbike accident once in every 7,000 hours, a serious riding accident happens once in every 350 hours.”
stan101 said:
AwesomeO said:
If cigarettes, motorbikes and alcohol were invented today they would probably be banned.
Horse riding should be added to that list.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/23/riding.shtml
“While you can expect to have a serious motorbike accident once in every 7,000 hours, a serious riding accident happens once in every 350 hours.”
Lawn Bowls.
Statistically the most dangerous sport on the planet.
contact sports
The_observer said:
mollwollfumble said:
Does anyone keep statistics on whether car racing is deadlier than motorbike racing or vice versa?
Bike racing tracks are designed so if a rider comes off they won’t get wrapped around a tree, telegrapg pole park benck etc, or go under a moving car or truck. Racing tracks & roads have no v omparison really.
Not so in the Isle of Mann I believe.
Your arguing that Motor Bikes should be banned because they are more dangerous…
But cars are more dangerous to the public than bikes
So who is more important ?
10s of millions of Public or
100s of thousands of bike riders